Faster linearizability checking via PP-compositionality

Linearizability is a well-established consistency and correctness criterion for concurrent data types. An important feature of linearizability is Herlihy and Wing's locality principle, which says that a concurrent system is linearizable if and only if all of its constituent parts (so-called objects) are linearizable. This paper presents $P$-compositionality, which generalizes the idea behind the locality principle to operations on the same concurrent data type. We implement $P$-compositionality in a novel linearizability checker. Our experiments with over nine implementations of concurrent sets, including Intel's TBB library, show that our linearizability checker is one order of magnitude faster and/or more space efficient than the state-of-the-art algorithm.Comment: 15 pages, 2 figure

Verifying linearizability on TSO architectures

Linearizability is the standard correctness criterion for fine-grained, non-atomic concurrent algorithms, and a variety of methods for verifying linearizability have been developed. However, most approaches assume a sequentially consistent memory model, which is not always realised in practice. In this paper we define linearizability on a weak memory model: the TSO (Total Store Order) memory model, which is implemented in the x86 multicore architecture. We also show how a simulation-based proof method can be adapted to verify linearizability for algorithms running on TSO architectures. We demonstrate our approach on a typical concurrent algorithm, spinlock, and prove it linearizable using our simulation-based approach. Previous approaches to proving linearizabilty on TSO architectures have required a modification to the algorithm's natural abstract specification. Our proof method is the first, to our knowledge, for proving correctness without the need for such modification

Toward Linearizability Testing for Multi-Word Persistent Synchronization Primitives

Persistent memory makes it possible to recover in-memory data structures following a failure instead of rebuilding them from state saved in slow secondary storage. Implementing such recoverable data structures correctly is challenging as their underlying algorithms must deal with both parallelism and failures, which makes them especially susceptible to programming errors. Traditional proofs of correctness should therefore be combined with other methods, such as model checking or software testing, to minimize the likelihood of uncaught defects. This research focuses specifically on the algorithmic principles of software testing, particularly linearizability analysis, for multi-word persistent synchronization primitives such as conditional swap operations. We describe an efficient decision procedure for linearizability in this context, and discuss its practical applications in detecting previously-unknown bugs in implementations of multi-word persistent primitives

Admit your weakness: Verifying correctness on TSO architectures

“The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-15317-9_22 ”.Linearizability has become the standard correctness criterion for fine-grained non-atomic concurrent algorithms, however, most approaches assume a sequentially consistent memory model, which is not always realised in practice. In this paper we study the correctness of concurrent algorithms on a weak memory model: the TSO (Total Store Order) memory model, which is commonly implemented by multicore architectures. Here, linearizability is often too strict, and hence, we prove a weaker criterion, quiescent consistency instead. Like linearizability, quiescent consistency is compositional making it an ideal correctness criterion in a component-based context. We demonstrate how to model a typical concurrent algorithm, seqlock, and prove it quiescent consistent using a simulation-based approach. Previous approaches to proving correctness on TSO architectures have been based on linearizabilty which makes it necessary to modify the algorithm’s high-level requirements. Our approach is the first, to our knowledge, for proving correctness without the need for such a modification